RTX 3070 Not getting fps i was expecting??

[TBrown1]

Hi i recently bought a 3070 ASUS DUAL OC and i am getting 90-120 fps on warzone at 1080p on low/normal settings roughly the same fps as my old 1660ti.

When i installed the 3070 i used DDU uninstaller in safe mode to uninstall all old drivers and installed latest driver from GeForce experience.

Maybe my cpu is bottlenecking??

 

Asus Dual RTX 3070
Ryzen 7 1800x
Asus prime X-470-Pro
Corsair 16GB DDR4 3200mhz

Cooler Master 650w PSU

500gb ssd with 8tb hdd

Any suggestions would be appreciated thank you!! 

 

Update: i got the 5600x today and it was the culprit of the fps loss, but now my mic on my headset is super quiet not sure why  

[Eigenvektor]

Use e.g. MSI Afterburner to see how your CPUs cores are used during gaming. If one or more are running at close to 100%, then it's probably a CPU bottleneck. You can also try increasing game details, resolution etc. If that has no effect on framerate, then the GPU isn't at its limit.

[CLEAR RTC]

Hey Man,

 

I literally started a similar thread this morning although you are seeing higher frames than I am.  I am running pretty similar specs to you.  I just started more troubleshooting popped in a new drive for a fresh install of windows and drivers etc.  Will finish it tomorrow.  A few people have suggested it was CPU bottle necking to me as well, but my Vega 56 was faster in both Warzone and PubG than what I am seeing now soooo.  If you search google I am seeing more and more similar threads.  Maybe a Windows update has hamstrung the Card?

 

I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to finish my reinstall 

 

EVGA XC3 Ultra RTX 3070

Ryzen 5 2600

MSI B450 Tomahawk MAX

Thermaltake 16GB @ 3200

[cm992]

35 minutes ago, TBrown1 said:

Hi i recently bought a 3070 ASUS DUAL OC and i am getting 90-120 fps on warzone at 1080p on low/normal settings roughly the same fps as my old 1660ti.

When i installed the 3070 i used DDU uninstaller in safe mode to uninstall all old drivers and installed latest driver from GeForce experience.

Maybe my cpu is bottlenecking??

Warzone has built in counters for cpu and gpu frametimes. Turn them on and you can see which is the bottleneck (the one that has a higher frametime is the bottleneck). I suspect your Ryzen 1800x is holding you back because of itssingle core performance since higher fps is usually tied to cpu single core performance and if you watched an rtx 3070 warzone benchmark on youtube they were probably using a better cpu. The good news is that your Asus prime X-470-Pro motherboard supports Ryzen 5000 with a bios update. But try those frametime counters.

 

5 minutes ago, CLEAR RTC said:

I literally started a similar thread this morning although you are seeing higher frames than I am.  I am running pretty similar specs to you.  I just started more troubleshooting popped in a new drive for a fresh install of windows and drivers etc.  Will finish it tomorrow.

 In warzone you can use the built in cpu and gpu frametime counters to find out which is the bottleneck (the one that has a higher frametime is the bottleneck)

[TBrown1]

41 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Use e.g. MSI Afterburner to see how your CPUs cores are used during gaming. If one or more are running at close to 100%, then it's probably a CPU bottleneck. You can also try increasing game details, resolution etc. If that has no effect on framerate, then the GPU isn't at its limit.

i changed graphics setting to high and fps barely dropped still pretty much the same and i have a picture of the cpu and i dont see it going any higher than 85%

[TBrown1]

26 minutes ago, cm992 said:

Warzone has built in counters for cpu and gpu frametimes. Turn them on and you can see which is the bottleneck (the one that has a higher frametime is the bottleneck). I suspect your Ryzen 1800x is holding you back because of itssingle core performance since higher fps is usually tied to cpu single core performance and if you watched an rtx 3070 warzone benchmark on youtube they were probably using a better cpu. The good news is that your Asus prime X-470-Pro motherboard supports Ryzen 5000 with a bios update. But try those frametime counters.

 

 In warzone you can use the built in cpu and gpu frametime counters to find out which is the bottleneck (the one that has a higher frametime is the bottleneck)

is this what you mean by cpu fps counter??

[TBrown1]

41 minutes ago, CLEAR RTC said:

Hey Man,

 

I literally started a similar thread this morning although you are seeing higher frames than I am.  I am running pretty similar specs to you.  I just started more troubleshooting popped in a new drive for a fresh install of windows and drivers etc.  Will finish it tomorrow.  A few people have suggested it was CPU bottle necking to me as well, but my Vega 56 was faster in both Warzone and PubG than what I am seeing now soooo.  If you search google I am seeing more and more similar threads.  Maybe a Windows update has hamstrung the Card?

 

I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to finish my reinstall 

 

EVGA XC3 Ultra RTX 3070

Ryzen 5 2600

MSI B450 Tomahawk MAX

Thermaltake 16GB @ 3200

Ok let me know!! this is frustrating!!

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, TBrown1 said:

Ok let me know!! this is frustrating!!

I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this looks fairly normal to me... youtube videos aren't a proper way to determine performance, and I doubt many people use such a 1st gen ryzen with a 30xx, this cpu alone will drag you down 20-30% even if it's not bottlenecked imo. 

 

you have to check real benchmarks then compare your cpu with their cpu and subtract the percentage yours is slower - and you also have to make sure exact same settings... 

 

I know that's a bit more effort than watching a yt video, but it's also more accurate. 

 

Also I mean since you're basically implying defective GPU, did you run some proper benchmarks like Firestrike and superposition? 

 

[Eigenvektor]

100 FPS is 1/100 = 0.01 seconds per frame or 10 milliseconds (10ms). Which is exactly the amount of time your CPU was busy during the frame, while the GPU has a frame time of 7ms. So in this case the CPU is the one limiting your performance.

 

Of course this is just a snapshot of a single frame, so ideally you'd have to look at a frame time graph over a longer period of time to get a more realistic picture.

 

2 hours ago, TBrown1 said:

i changed graphics setting to high and fps barely dropped still pretty much the same and i have a picture of the cpu and i dont see it going any higher than 85%

~edit: Two possibilities:

 

a) The game's engine may not be capable of utilizing the CPU 100%. For example there could be some required synchronization between CPU and GPU which means the CPU might spend some time idling each frame, to wait until the GPU is ready to receive data again.

 

b) The performance of your CPU is, in turn, limited by the performance of your RAM. Depending on what exactly the issue is, either faster RAM or lower latency might help to some degree.

 

I'm not sure there's a good way to measure either case, so this is just speculation.

[CLEAR RTC]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this looks fairly normal to me... youtube videos aren't a proper way to determine performance, and I doubt many people use such a 1st gen ryzen with a 30xx, this cpu alone will drag you down 20-30% even if it's not bottlenecked imo. 

 

you have to check real benchmarks then compare your cpu with their cpu and subtract the percentage yours is slower - and you also have to make sure exact same settings... 

 

I know that's a bit more effort than watching a yt video, but it's also more accurate. 

 

Also I mean since you're basically implying defective GPU, did you run some proper benchmarks like Firestrike and superposition? 

 

I'm not ruling out CPU bottlenecking but when you check online for CPU GPU performance in warzone 3770K's with 980Ti's are getting over 130 FPS average.  Hard to believe an Ivy Bridge is outperforming Pinnacle Ridge. Maybe the OP here and I have different issues but I am getting 10% less FPS than I did with my Vega 56.  I am not suggesting bad hardware but a software or configuration problem.  I may also have the opportunity to test my system with a 3800x which I will do on my existing Win10 install and the Fresh install.  I'll see about getting some proper logging done as well.

[cm992]

9 hours ago, TBrown1 said:

is this what you mean by cpu fps counter??

Yes and this proves that you have a cpu bottleneck. GPU time 7ms and CPU time 10ms. This means that your GPU is completing a frame every 7ms and your CPU is completing a frame every 10ms. So your GPU fps is 143fps because 1000ms in a second and 1000ms/7ms=143fps. And your CPU fps is 1000ms/10ms=100fps which equals the 99fps seen on screen! You have a cpu bottleneck. Get a Ryzen 5600x with stock cooler, update your bios and switch processors.

[Mark Kaine]

13 minutes ago, CLEAR RTC said:

I'm not ruling out CPU bottlenecking but when you check online for CPU GPU performance in warzone 3770K's with 980Ti's are getting over 130 FPS average.  Hard to believe an Ivy Bridge is outperforming Pinnacle Ridge. Maybe the OP here and I have different issues but I am getting 10% less FPS than I did with my Vega 56.  I am not suggesting bad hardware but a software or configuration problem.  I may also have the opportunity to test my system with a 3800x which I will do on my existing Win10 install and the Fresh install.  I'll see about getting some proper logging done as well.

Right I understand there seems to be an issue. 

 

but "not enough performance!!!" is always difficult to pin point (well almost always) due to lack of actual info... and often reluctant posters who simply don't want to listen if you tell them the likely cause for there issues... it can be quite tiring... 

 

in this case it seems kinda more than obvious s gen1 ryzen just can't keep up...! 

 

there's also always the possibility of psu not being up to snuff, but here it seems more productive to change out the cpu for something more adequate as a first step. (3600 and up!) 

 

Also as for *your* issue, what are the specs (full)? 

[cm992]

7 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

100 FPS is 1/100 = 0.01 seconds per frame or 10 milliseconds (10ms). Which is exactly the amount of time your CPU was busy during the frame, while the GPU has a frame time of 7ms. So in this case the CPU is the one limiting your performance.

 

Of course this is just a snapshot of a single frame, so ideally you'd have to look at a frame time graph over a longer period of time to get a more realistic picture.

 

~edit: Two possibilities:

 

a) The game's engine may not be capable of utilizing the CPU 100%. For example there could be some required synchronization between CPU and GPU which means the CPU might spend some time idling each frame, to wait until the GPU is ready to receive data again.

 

b) The performance of your CPU is, in turn, limited by the performance of your RAM. Depending on what exactly the issue is, either faster RAM or lower latency might help to some degree.

 

I'm not sure there's a good way to measure either case, so this is just speculation.

third possibility, the cpu is bottlenecked on one core, solution is get a ryzen 5600x and fast ram.

 

edit just saw the per core screenshot my bad

[cm992]

I wonder if the OP forget to set ram to 3200mhz with xmp in bios. That could explain it?

[AngryBeaver]

1 hour ago, CLEAR RTC said:

I'm not ruling out CPU bottlenecking but when you check online for CPU GPU performance in warzone 3770K's with 980Ti's are getting over 130 FPS average.  Hard to believe an Ivy Bridge is outperforming Pinnacle Ridge. Maybe the OP here and I have different issues but I am getting 10% less FPS than I did with my Vega 56.  I am not suggesting bad hardware but a software or configuration problem.  I may also have the opportunity to test my system with a 3800x which I will do on my existing Win10 install and the Fresh install.  I'll see about getting some proper logging done as well.

The 1st gen ryzen while a massive jump from the older bulldozer architecture was slower than most 2nd gen or higher Intel chips in both IPC and clock speeds.

 

That is why even an older cpu is pushing higher frames. Now the second gen chips closed the gap a little more, the 3rd gen again got much closer and then finally thr 5th gen took a clear IPC lead with boost breaking the 5ghz barrier on 1 or 2 cores.

 

So if you really want to shift your bottleneck to the gpu you should aim for a 3000 or 5000 series cpu. The 3000s are pretty cheap right now if money is the concern. You will also be able to play with the infinity fabric ratio to help get a little more performance even with 3200 ram.

[TBrown1]

2 hours ago, cm992 said:

I wonder if the OP forget to set ram to 3200mhz with xmp in bios. That could explain it?

I have the ram set to 3200mhz in bios and I is showing that I am getting 3200mhz in task manager 

[TBrown1]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

The 1st gen ryzen while a massive jump from the older bulldozer architecture was slower than most 2nd gen or higher Intel chips in both IPC and clock speeds.

 

That is why even an older cpu is pushing higher frames. Now the second gen chips closed the gap a little more, the 3rd gen again got much closer and then finally thr 5th gen took a clear IPC lead with boost breaking the 5ghz barrier on 1 or 2 cores.

 

So if you really want to shift your bottleneck to the gpu you should aim for a 3000 or 5000 series cpu. The 3000s are pretty cheap right now if money is the concern. You will also be able to play with the infinity fabric ratio to help get a little more performance even with 3200 ram.

I am looking at new cpus I don't stream just game and occasionally watch videos at the same time would the 3600 be a better option than the 5600x considering it's almost 700CAD

[cm992]

8 minutes ago, TBrown1 said:

I am looking at new cpus I don't stream just game and occasionally watch videos at the same time would the 3600 be a better option than the 5600x considering it's almost 700CAD

The 5600x is a much better choice than the 3600 in my opinion. Your motherboard already supports the 5600x with a bios update. The 5600x has much better single core performance which is the most important for gaming. Since you said Canadian I will refer to memoryexpress.com where the ryzen 3600 is $265 and in stock and the ryzen 5600x is $430 and out of stock. If you go with the 5600x you'll be getting the most out of your platform. However with the $165 price difference I can see how the 3600 is more appealing. One thing to note is that you'll be downgrading in a sense from an 8 core 1800x to a 6 core 3600 or 5600 but since you are just gaming the single core improvements will make up for that. Actually I think the 5600x passes the 1800x in multicore workloads just because the 6 cores it has are much faster. 

[AngryBeaver]

13 minutes ago, cm992 said:

The 5600x is a much better choice than the 3600 in my opinion. Your motherboard already supports the 5600x with a bios update. The 5600x has much better single core performance which is the most important for gaming. Since you said Canadian I will refer to memoryexpress.com where the ryzen 3600 is $265 and in stock and the ryzen 5600x is $430 and out of stock. If you go with the 5600x you'll be getting the most out of your platform. However with the $165 price difference I can see how the 3600 is more appealing. One thing to note is that you'll be downgrading in a sense from an 8 core 1800x to a 6 core 3600 or 5600 but since you are just gaming the single core improvements will make up for that. Actually I think the 5600x passes the 1800x in multicore workloads just because the 6 cores it has are much faster. 

This is also a 3600 and not a 3600x vs a 5600x. I know the only different was base/boost speeds from the factory, but the 3600x was 50ish more than the 3600.

 

 

Also the 3600x out performs the 1800x in multi and single thread in most benchmarks.

 

The 5600x would murder it.

[Mister Woof]

1800x at 1080p is going to be your limiting factor on any modern GPU.

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

1800x at 1080p is going to be your limiting factor on any modern GPU.

I've told this people now too, because I see it on my own pc, I told them to up resolution to get rid of the cpu bottleneck (mind you I don't have a cpu bottleneck but the diff between 1080p and 1440p *same* settings otherwise is like 40% vs 20%) I didn't get an answer, the suggestion to up resolution was completely ignored

 

[Mister Woof]

12 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I've told this people now too, because I see it on my own pc, I told them to up resolution ti get rid of the cpu bottleneck (mind you I don't have a cpu bottleneck but the diff between 1080p and 1440p *same* settings otherwise is like 40% vs 20%) I didn't get an answer, the suggestion to up resolution was completely ignored

 

My overclocked 1600 bottlenecks my Vega 64 at 1080p even sometimes. Solved it by plugging it into a 60hz 4k TV and just locking to 30-40fps. And in games that the Vega 64 can't do 4k, it will do 1080p 60 most of the time, but it can bog down below there at times because of CPU.

[Mister Woof]

3 hours ago, CLEAR RTC said:

I'm not ruling out CPU bottlenecking but when you check online for CPU GPU performance in warzone 3770K's with 980Ti's are getting over 130 FPS average.  Hard to believe an Ivy Bridge is outperforming Pinnacle Ridge. Maybe the OP here and I have different issues but I am getting 10% less FPS than I did with my Vega 56.  I am not suggesting bad hardware but a software or configuration problem.  I may also have the opportunity to test my system with a 3800x which I will do on my existing Win10 install and the Fresh install.  I'll see about getting some proper logging done as well.

Keep in mind, 1st gen Ryzen was slightly behind Haswell, and had much much worse inter-core latency. It being as fast as Ivy Bridge in gaming is not really a stretch based on IPC alone, and possibly the latency issue making it worse.

 

And then there's the whole "are they just lying" question on youtube videos, because it happens often.

 

Bottom line unfortunately, first gen Ryzen is just too slow to power these new GPUs at 1080p and sometimes 1440p to their fullest in a lot of games.

[TBrown1]

14 minutes ago, cm992 said:

The 5600x is a much better choice than the 3600 in my opinion. Your motherboard already supports the 5600x with a bios update. The 5600x has much better single core performance which is the most important for gaming. Since you said Canadian I will refer to memoryexpress.com where the ryzen 3600 is $265 and in stock and the ryzen 5600x is $430 and out of stock. If you go with the 5600x you'll be getting the most out of your platform. However with the $165 price difference I can see how the 3600 is more appealing. One thing to note is that you'll be downgrading in a sense from an 8 core 1800x to a 6 core 3600 or 5600 but since you are just gaming the single core improvements will make up for that. Actually I think the 5600x passes the 1800x in multicore workloads just because the 6 cores it has are much faster. 

How big of a difference would I see from getting the 3600 rather than the 5600x fps wise? Don't mean to sound dumb just wondering

[Mark Kaine]

15 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

My overclocked 1600 bottlenecks my Vega 64 at 1080p even sometimes

I mean, still, the cpu should get less stress at higher resolution thus possibly resulting in more frames, provided the gpu can keep up of course!